11/04/2010

11 comments:

I have never examined the sunspot theory in detail, so I can't comment on it directly, but I have to ask, if global warming is caused by an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide, why is Mars also warming?

Why is Mars warming? Surveys show that 8 out of 10 scientists believe human activity is contributing to the warming of the planet.

My guess would be that the warming of the planet is a combination of human activity, sunspot activity and some natural reoccurrence in the Earth life cycle.

Setting aside the Biblical believers who say the Earth is 6,000 years old, geologists, scientists, etc. say the we've had multiple ice ages with the last on being approximately 10,000 years ago.

In the late 1970s, the talk was about the coming ice age. National Geographic did a cover story on it.

I like the cartoon because it pretty much captures one of the two major themes used against Ron Johnson in his campaign to win the Senate seat from Russ Feingold. The other was his mention of Ayn Rand's book Atlas Shrugged and how important it is to his thinking.

Considering Johnson's decisive win over three-term incumbent Feingold, I guess those two themes you cite were not very persuasive arguements. But at least one of them makes for good - albiet petty and sarcastic - cartooning.

By the way, you did not answer Daniel's question regarding why Mars is warming right now, with no human impetus, along with Earth. Alternatively, if you insist that there are many reasons, with mankind making a significant contribution, you might want to explain how the earth was warmer from 900 to 1300 AD (the Midieval Warming Period) that it is now, in the absence of any human impetus (i.e. man-made carbon emissions). But of course you can't.

The fact is, AGW is a monumental hoax; nothing more than a political tool devised to extract more wealth from the producers of society and further empower the entrenched political elite. Its a great scam, especially for the politicians.

There have been claims that warming on Mars and Pluto are proof that the recent warming on Earth is caused by an increase in solar activity, and not by greenhouse gases. But we can say with certainty that, even if Mars, Pluto or any other planets have warmed in recent years, it is not due to changes in solar activity.

The Sun's energy output has not increased since direct measurements began in 1978 (see Climate myth special: Global warming is down to the Sun, not humans). If increased solar output really was responsible, we should be seeing warming on all the planets and their moons, not just Mars and Pluto.

Our solar system has eight planets, three dwarf planets and quite a few moons with at least a rudimentary atmosphere, and thus a climate of sorts. Their climates will be affected by local factors such as orbital variations, changes in reflectance (albedo) and even volcanic eruptions, so it would not be surprising if several planets and moons turn out to be warming at any one time.

However, given that a year on Mars is nearly two Earth years long, and that a year on Pluto lasts for 248 Earth years, it is rather early to start drawing conclusions about long-term climate trends on the outer bodies of the Solar System.

What do we know? Images of Mars suggest that between 1999 and 2005, some of the frozen carbon dioxide that covers the south polar region turned into gas (sublimated). This may be the result of the whole planet warming.

Solar output waxes and wanes in an eleven-year cycle, as well as a longer, nearly-hundred-year cycle. We are supposed to be entering an period of time of greater activity now. The connection between solar output and increase in temperature is complex, being dependent on cloud reflection, ice reflection, plant uptake of CO2, oceanic uptake of CO2, and many other factors, so that ANY decrease or increase in temperature can be explained by either sunspot theory or human-industrial-greenhouse-gas theory. I don't believe the 8 out of 10 or the 2 out of 10.

Anonymous, I cut and paste this stuff from multiple sources of all political persuasions, and I don't have to be a scientist to sense that some scientists are full of crap.

As a citizen of a democracy, I must make decisions who to believe without being an expert on railroads, climate, health care, economics, the effects of salt in our diets, nuclear energy, fishing, how the people of other nations will view us if we ratify Kyoto, negotiating with unions, recidivism rates for various crimes, the cost of shoes, or any number of other issues that might be potentially affected by public policy. What is your background?

I am a biologist teaching at a local university. People like you insult those of us who devote our lives to unravelling the mysteries of how we got here and where we might be headed. You need to expand you intellectual diet beyond conservative talk radio and right-wing blogs. Money talks and that money makes people like you talk like a parrot.

I know too many know it alls like you who have never read a legitimate book of scientific inquiry and haven't had a science class since you were a junior in high school. The fact that you got a C in that class doesn't stop you from being a conservative, propaganda parrot.

Maybe you should spend less time pretending you are Shaun Hannity on the blogs and spend more time getting a legitimate education. Remember, the mind is a terrible thing to waste!!!!

I think you've unfairly charachterized Daniel Noe. The following is a quote from the header of his blog. A simple mouse click would have shown you this info. I'm not one to criticize science or scientists but in this instance the scientist is full of shit characterizing Daniel Noe as a closed minded bigot.P.S. I don't know Daniel Noe nor am I he in case you are wondering.

"Hi. I am Daniel Noe. I interview people to understand different political schools of thought. I report what I find in my updates (see link above). This site is about understanding people. How do liberals think? How do conservatives think? Do some people think at all? Whether you wish to understand others for the sake of getting along or for the sake of better knowing how to defeat them in the next election, this site is for you. Either way, I will do my best to deliver the truth.

Everybody has heard countless reasons of why people think the way they do, but I wonder how many of these explanations are true. Are all who oppose war wussy pacifist bedwetters? Are all who support war redneck thrillseekers? Do those opposing abortion really believe in the authority of men over women and the authority of the church over the state? Are those that support abortion truly unaware that a fetus has a heartbeat, responds to sounds, and is more than a mere clump of cells? Are those opposing homosexual marriage merely sexually insecure? Are those who drive SUVs truly uncaring about the environment? Are those that deny global warming the same people that deny the holocaust, deny the moon landing, and refuse to accept President Obama’s birth certificate? Are those who believe in global warming the same people that believe in alien abductions, believe in government conspiracies, and see Elvis Priestly at the gas station?

If you really want to understand the other side, keep reading. If you are content with what you have been told, go back to your talk radio, your newspaper editorials, and your television news."

Such are the ways of today's political debates. It's amazes me how many people are of the school of they are right and you are wrong if you don't agree with me.

I think Jesus would have a hard time figuring how to be the referee in today's world. Maybe there are simple answers to the questions that face us. Maybe there are right and wrong answers to those questions. But that doesn't really matter. What matters is that the side with the most power wins.

Let's assume Jesus had all the right answers to the problems of his day. He ended up getting nailed to a cross for this. Gandhi and Martin Luther King got shot for putting forth their spin on the questions we face.

Concerning this statement, "If you are content with what you have been told, go back to your talk radio, your newspaper editorials, and your television news," I have some questions.

I subscribe to and read to newspapers. One a daily and one a weekly agricultural paper. I also read the local weekly newspaper. All are informative.

I read editorials of all perspectives. They give me something to think about and provide fiber for my mental diet.

I listen to talk radio and find it quite informative... especially Wisconsin Public Radio. At least two sides of the topic are discussed in an adult manner.

Concerning television news, what does that mean? If you mean FOX or MSNBC, I don't consider them news. I consider them to be cheerleaders for political parties. Public TV provides intelligent analysis on important historical, scientific and social topics.

An important thing to remember in the search for nuggets of gold in the vast pile of bullshit that bombards us is that there are individuals and organizations that can make a lot of money by increasing the volume of bullshit fired at that the masses.

As Marshall McLulan said,"A point of view can be a dangerous luxury when substituted for insight and understanding."